Effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine xuanbi antong granules for the treatment of borderline coronary lesions: study protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicentre clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As the early stage of coronary heart disease (CHD), borderline coronary lesion (BCL) is defined as a 30%-70% diameter stenosis. Previous studies have demonstrated that BCL may progress to acute coronary syndrome easily. However, routine medications available for the treatments of BCL have some limitations. Xuanbi antong granule (XAG) has been used for the treatment of BCL in China for many years. Previous studies have shown that XAG has effectiveness in improving clinical symptoms and quality of life in patients with CHD. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of XAG in patients with BCL. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. A total of 300 participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention group and the placebo group. Based on routine medications, the intervention group will be treated with XAG and the placebo group will be treated with XAG placebo. All participants will receive a 6-month treatment and then be followed-up for another 6 months. The primary outcomes are the changes of target plaque characteristics (including target plaque volume, degree of stenosis, CT value and calcification score) measured by dual source CT angiography. The secondary outcomes include blood lipid indicators, efficacy of angina symptoms, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events. All the data will be recorded in electronic case report forms and analysed by SPSS V.20.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Research Ethics Committee of Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing, China (No. 2017-083-KY-01). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The results of this study will be disseminated to the public through academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-IOR-17013189; Pre-results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".